View Single Post
11-19-2003, 12:24 PM
Registered User
discostu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,283
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CH
Stu lets take your imaginary scenario and add my imaginary twist to it.

Lets say the Rangers go out and sign their free agent. And he turns out to be the next Pierre Turgeon (a big contract that they dont want because he isnt producing). And keeping Turgeon in the NHL forces the Rangers to keep their young guys (for example Lundmark) from playing a regular NHL shirt and thus he does not develop.

Now our supposedly cash strapped Calgary doesn't sign anyone so they play Chuck Kobasew in the NHL with the roster spot and he develops and leads the Flames to the cup.

Now why is my imaginary scenario any better or worse then yours is?
First, I have used a fictional scenario to simplify the discussion. I could use a real-life example (I think Dallas makes a good case), but there subjective aspects to it, and the discussion then leads to whether such-and-such a team really had an economic advantage or not, or how much impact that player had (i.e. they would have won the cup without him). It would be impossible to advance the discussion past that, since all someone has to do is latch on to a side issue, and the discussion degenerates. Given the track record of Mr. Benjamin and BDMW, I think that outcome is not only likely, but inevitable.

So, we have a fictional example. One, where we can hold other factors constant. What is so hard to believe about my scenario. We have seen UFA's provide a positive influence on a team in real-life. This is not far-fetched. Everything else about the scenario just involves holding all of the other variables constant.

The fact is, this scenario is a possibility. You can try to push the argument to the side, but it doesn't change that fact. The original claim was that there was no area where a team can use economic advantage to increase their odds at getting them to elite status. I have provided an area where this is false. I am not trying, at this stage, to establish at how likely it is to occur (although I do think it is significant) because I cannot do that as long as there is a fundamental disagreement at the basic level.

The point that I was trying to make is that it is possible, and I have done so. People can choose to ignore the scenario, but given that it is possible, all they are doing is proving themselves to be ignorant. The original claim is still false.

As for your disclaimer, yes, in that case Calgary would have be the better team because of it, but it is dependant on the actions of the Rangers. They are in the drivers seat at the time. The Flames are relying on the Rangers of making an error. This puts them at a disadvantage. They can only succeed if the Rangers do not make the right choices, thus they are at a disadvantage. That still proves my point.

discostu is offline